Argument200【0906G背水一战三月小组】第5次作业 thanks zjw7hk

yunfeiyang4everUID??2604917

【原文】 version 2
    In this argument, the author recommends that dentists should target the male consumer and emphasize both the effectiveness of their techniques and the sensitivity of their staff nervous or suffering patients. To support this recommendation the author compares male patients with female patients of faint times. Based on the comparison, the author claims that men are more likely to be misery than women are. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the recommendation is.

    To begin with, the incomplete comparison that three times more men than women faint is a misleading assertion that could not be tested. Firstly, the author fails to provide the total number of the male and female patients. It is entirely possible that the number of male patients is much more than that of female. For that matter, perhaps although male faint is three times more than female faint, the faint rate of male might be lower than that of female. Secondly, the author fails to provide the curable of both male and female patients. It is entirely possible that male's toothache is more serious than that of female. For that matter, it takes for grant that faint times of male is more than that of female. Therefore, providing merely the incomplete information without an all-around comparison, the author cannot convince me effectively.

    Additionally, even assuming that above comparison is reliable, the author depends on the assumption that faint is the only manner to show patients’ pain. However, it is entirely possible that one or more other manners were instead responsible for the sorrow. Perhaps female patients are crying instead of faint when they are distressed. Or perhaps female patients tolerate the sorrow in order to representing their strong when they visit the dentist. Either scenario, if true, would not provide an alternative explanation for the conclusion that male are more possible to be distressed about having dental work done than women are.

    Furthermore, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if men are more likely to be misery than women are, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that dentists should target the male consumer and underline both the effectiveness of techniques and sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients. As we know, excellent techniques, which could eliminate the patients nervous, are more essential than the sensitivity. Moreover, the recommendation only mentions male patients and overlooks females. What about female patients? Do they never have a toothache? Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the author cannot confidently recommendation.

    To sum up, the recommendation lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the author maintained. To strength the argument, the author would have to produce more clear evidences that indicate male are more likely to be distressed than female are before jumping to the recommendation. The author must also provide the information of dentists' techniques skill and consider the female patients.